Intended for healthcare professionals

CCBYNC Open access

Rapid response to:

Research

Antidepressant efficacy of agomelatine: meta-analysis of published and unpublished studies

BMJ 2014; 348 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g1888 (Published 19 March 2014) Cite this as: BMJ 2014;348:g1888

Rapid Response:

Dear Editor,

1. I endorse the principles of Retraction Watch
"retractions as a window into the scientific process"
http://retractionwatch.com/

2. I'll quote from a previous response posted today on the BMJ:
"I also take it very seriously when evidence does not support statements about an active pharmacological principle, especially when there are serious concerns about the safety and effectiveness of a molecule. The source of the misleading information (e.g., pharmaceutical company, peer-review medical journal, governamental, academic institution, etc) doesn't matter."
http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f4386/rr/763130

3. I'll quote from the previous response to this paper "In this first letter, I prefer to put emphasis on real data of published and unpublished agomelatine studies, allowing numbers to speak for themselves."
http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g1888/rapid-responses

4. This paper doesn't meet the quality standards of the BMJ.
Question: any reason not to retract?

Yours sincerely,

Jorge R.

Competing interests: I support open data and transparency in research.

22 August 2014
Jorge H Ramirez
Professor of Pharmacology
Universidad del Valle
Cll 4B 36-00 Univalle sede San. Fdo. Edificio 116.